I wonder how the gamepad UI will be. Do you have to move close to an object to get the hover text?
1 Like
If you click on a spot, you’ll get a longer description of that object/character usually. And more important: A good “look at” text shouldn’t tell me what I see, but what I don’t see (in the graphics). For example that the pirate there seems to have something in his pocket or that Guybrush has seen this pirate in another place.
In that case you have a problem with your visuals. 
As stated above IMHO “looking at” should reveal additional information or hints (and not necessary or essential information).
In that case you don’t need the “look at” text at all (and especially not the thoughts).
Because it’s fun. If I remember correctly, the first two(?) Monkey Island games offer you some answers that Guybrush wouldn’t say. If you chose one of these lines, Guybrush reacts in a funny way.
The real fun is my interaction with Guybrush and the game. And one part of this is the question “what would Guybrush do if I tell him to beat the pirate”? I know that he wouldn’t do it. I know that he wouldn’t step into the canon of the Fettucini brothers. But I like to know what happens if I make him try to do this - or something that isn’t in his nature. (These things doesn’t have to be physical things, these were only examples. )
3 Likes
I’m playing Grim Fandango PS4 with my kids now, and I’m really missing the toggle between what Manny is looking at and also missing the text telling me what it is (MI4 had both, and I swear PC Grim Fandango had the toggle?)
If they dedicate a button or two to toggling what Guybrush is looking at, with the text appearing appropriately, it’ll work fine.
1 Like
But you can still do all of this.
What you get extra is that you have an automatic look.
The only difference with other games happens only if you’re the kind of player who interacts first and only then looks.
1 Like
I’ve done a lot of things in MI that I knew were wrong in various ways precisely because there are so many scripted responses. (I suspect a game designed for voice-over won’t have that as much.) So disagree very specifically about these games, as opposed to the genre.
What I meant is that all you get is… responses. You don’t actually do that, unless it’s included in how the story is supposed to develop.
This is not an open world game like GTA where even if your mission is to sneak into a place undetected you can decide to do what you want, kill everyone and see how it develops from there.
If you want to beat up the friendly guy and the game lets you do so, it’s because either 1) it’s needed for the plot or 2) it has absolutely no influence on the plot.
Or you can’t finish the game because of that, but then it’s a Sierra game.
1 Like
(edited below)
1 Like
That’s right. 
But why do you need that?
If we assume that a “look at” reveals more information and/or hints, you get the hint before you had the chance to think of it and/or find a solution. Even if Guybrush is only telling you his thoughts, he helps you. For example at the door he points you to the pirates who are inside. You instantly know that the pirates are there. This is a huge spoiler. Even if this is just as a reminder (because you have visited the Scumm Bar already) you don’t have to remember this fact yourself. An explicit “look at” would be better, because it would be a confirmation to the solution that has formed in your brain.
If you present information without a hint like “This is a cupboard” then the game just tells you what the player is already seeing. But then you don’t need the “look at” at all - like in Maniac Mansion.
btw: I’ve never understood why they have introduced the “look” verb in Indy III. I see what’s in the scene and most of the time you don’t have to look at an object in detail (for example the diary).
I agree. But these games feel like an open world game.
2 Likes
Lines like the above are hilarious because they are completely inappropriate to the situation. That’s really brilliant. This needs to be preserved. I’m sure Ron loves this as well, so I believe we’ll have that.
Now, if the text-on-hover approach is used to provide guybrush’s thoughts, it’s true it can break all the above. Suppose you hover the pirates and you saw “I wonder if they can help me become a pirate”, and then, when you click, you saw these three choices. It wouldn’t work. So we could have a problem …
However, if the text-on-hover is strictly used to provide the “look descriptions”, it remains compatible with the above.
5 Likes
Oh, I loved the Look verb! It mainly gave background banter, but it was useful a few times I remember.
In the library, Looking at each stained glass window has Indy tell you whether it’s similar to the picture in the diary or EXACTLY like the picture (indicating the correct room). In the Venice restaurant, looking at the wine bottle has Indy make a comment out loud that convinces the patron to give you the bottle when you try to pick it up. In Castle Brunwald, Looking at a uniform in your inventory has you search its pockets for a needed key.
Whew, Castle Brunwald. That’s what I think of when I read…
[quote=“Guga, post:2382, topic:4993”]This is not an open world game like GTA where even if your mission is to sneak into a place undetected you can decide to do what you want, kill everyone and see how it develops from there.
If you want to beat up the friendly guy and the game lets you do so, it’s because either 1) it’s needed for the plot or 2) it has absolutely no influence on the plot.[/quote]
I loved my time in Castle Brunwald. My first successful playthrough was a combination of talking to guards, fighting other guards, sneaking past other guards to avoid interaction, and pulling those wires on Henry’s door.
Then eventually, you can make choices like talking to everyone, or fighting everyone, or just fighting Corporal Kruger (leather jacket guy) and wearing your officer uniform for everybody else. Finding money in various amounts, which can be used to bribe border guards later as an alternative to dialogue or fighting. It sort of reminds me of the choices Guybrush can make to haggle with Stan. You get a taste of this in Fate of Atlantis when getting past Biff, but that’s mainly to gauge your path. The Fists path does have opportunities to puzzle solve enemies rather than fight them.
If I had the capacity to make SCUMM type fan games, I’d make a short game consisting entirely of Guybrush in a Castle Brunwald situation (probably sneaking into a town fort with British guards), with possibilities for bluffing, insult swordfighting, running/sneaking, puzzle solving to avoid, disguising in a redcoat or a pink dress, Monkey Kombat . . .
I’m getting distracted again. Love me some Castle Brunwald.
So, we do have the other MI6 scenes with the Brrrmuda judge and Wally. We didn’t see any UI because Guybrush walked to part of the screen, automatically entered a door, and automatically began the dialogue. But both conversations had different dialogue options for him.
Maybe this “Talk to pirate” situation was just a brief one with no dialogue tree.
Since the whole “say stupid things or even choose stupid things but have the character NOT say that” is something I expect to be in the game as it’s the pinnacle of adventure game humor, I expect the mouseover text to be carefully written.
Also, let’s be honest here: the “look” verb is 90% of the time used for jokes. And maybe some hints disguised as jokes.
I’ve seen lots of playthroughs of my own games where players just missed the best jokes because they didn’t bother looking. That’s why I added the “look first” mechanic in Mutiny on the Cloda and The Will of Arthur Flabbington. The alternative is this one, which is the Unavowed approach and also the very same one PowerQuest offers in its template project. Instead of pointing at a bucket and writing “Bucket”, you can have a “this bucket smells like rotten fish”.
I really see no problem with this.
3 Likes
But you are not losing this in RtMI.
When the cursor goes over the SCUMM Bar sign, the tooltip says only “Ah, the SCUMM Bar.”. When you click the mouse button, you get the usual scripted response.
These tooltips aren’t a substitution for the responses. They don’t provide automatically the result of the “Look at” verb.
1 Like
2 Likes
Is that the circus of the Fettuccini Brothers? 
1 Like
At this point, I genuinely hope that it isn’t. There’s already far too many returning characters in the game for my tastes. It seeming more and more likely that this game is one big 'member berries fest and I hate that whole kind of nostalgia baiting wank fest. I want to see new locations and new characters. Make something new that becomes iconic, instead of riding the wave of things which are already iconic.
That’s what Monkey Island 2 did so brilliantly; yes, it contained a handful of returning secondary characters from the first game but by and large, the characters were original creations and all of the locations were brand new and all of those original characters and locations went on to become iconic in their own right.
If nothing else, one of the unfortunate consequences of constantly relying upon pre-existing locations and characters is that it shrinks the fictional universe down and makes it seem that much smaller. I think that sequels ought to expand the universe and lore, not shrink it down. I’ll be pretty disappointed if Return to Monkey Island is 50% entirely new content and 50% a repeat of things we’ve already seen. If I wanted to revisit Mêlée Island, I’d replay The Secret of Monkey Island.
1 Like
Why do you define it a “spoiler” if the player already has that information? 
That is actually a help for the player’s memory (which would come in handy if the time between playing sessions is long) but it wouldn’t still be a spoiler if the player previously got that information.
But you still have explicit “whatever verb applies here”; you have to click the mouse button to get, for example, Guybrush describing an object.
Also, why do you think it’s better to let the player use an explicit “look at” verb on a door and getting a canned response?
I agree, there are already too many returning characters… unless… [theory-mode] it’s an alternate reality Melee where the old characters need to be there, but in different roles [/theory-mode].
1 Like
Unfortunately, it does indeed look to be the Fettuccini Brothers’ circus tent; the colouring of the tent is exactly the same as it appears in The Secret of Monkey Island. Dammit! I guess at this point, my only hope is that the 'member berries horseshit is limited solely to the Mêlée Island section of the game and that said section is relatively short compared to the sections which follow.
The fact that we know about Brrrmuda and Terror Islands makes me wonder if it will resemble MI2 in format, minus the starting at the carnival.
Prologue: Amusement Park and/or something mindblowing in first 10 minutes.
Part 1: includes Mêlée Island
Part 2: includes Mêlée, Brrrmuda, and Terror Islands in MI2 format
Part 3: includes Monkey Island
Part 4: endgame stuff
2 Likes
Really? My comment was deeply tongue-in-cheek, actually. 
You are right, they are almost identical (no flags at the top).
1 Like